Gee, the incidence of severe hurricanes is increasing.

[shira]

Yet another study cataloging more severe weather, and attributing the results to global warming caused in part by greenhouse gases.

According to data gathered by researchers at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the number of major Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, even though the total number of hurricanes, including weaker ones, has dropped since the 1990s. Katrina was a Category 4 storm when it made landfall.

Using satellite data, the four researchers found that the average number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes -- those with winds of 131 mph or higher -- rose from 10 a year in the 1970s to 18 a year since 1990. Average tropical sea surface temperatures have increased as much as 1 degree Fahrenheit during the same period, after remaining stable between 1900 and the mid-1960s.

Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Judith A. Curry -- co-author of the study with colleagues Peter J. Webster and Hai-Ru Chang, and NCAR's Greg J. Holland -- said in an interview that their survey, coupled with computer models and scientists' understanding of how hurricanes work, has given the researchers a better sense of how rising sea temperatures are linked to more-intense storms.

"There is increasing confidence, as the result of our study, that there's some level of greenhouse warming in what we're seeing," Curry said. "Is it the whole story? We don't know."

Higher ocean temperatures result in more water vapor in the air, which, combined with certain wind patterns, helps power stronger hurricanes, Webster said. Small increases in sea temperature, he added, can "exponentially provide more and more fuel for the hurricanes."

Other studies and computer models also have pointed to an increase in storm intensity: Massachusetts Institute of Technology atmospheric scientist Kerry A. Emanuel wrote last month in the journal Nature that the duration and maximum wind speeds of storms in the North Atlantic and North Pacific have increased about 50 percent since the mid-1970s. The storms' growing violence stemmed in part from higher ocean temperatures, he concluded.

Of course, there are scientists who disagree (has there EVER been a theory that had 100% support?). But there's a quote from a former critic:

And some hurricane experts who previously have questioned the influence of global warming now say the evidence is mounting that it has contributed to recent intense tropical storms.

Florida International University researcher Hugh Willoughby, who headed NOAA's hurricane research division between 1995 and 2003, said the recent two hurricane studies are "very persuasive" and helped move him "toward the climate corner" of the debate.

"It's really hard to find any holes in this, and I'm the kind of person who's inclined to look for holes," he said of the new study in Science. The arguments against the connection between climate change and more intense storms, he added, are "looking weaker and weaker as time goes by."

(The link below requires registration with the Washington Post site.)

Severe Hurricane Study

 

[Genx87]

Oh god, anybody can link anything if they put their mind to it.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh god, anybody can link anything if they put their mind to it.

Trust me, after the last 5 years we are all quite aware of that.

 

[arsbanned]

That's for sure.

 

[Zanix]

Global warming is a myth. :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

I object to having my pet theory upset. I came down with the troglodytes and that's where I want to stay. I think I'll attack your ability to link. Kill the messenger, somebody, please. I want to remain as stupid as a turd.

 

[daveshel]

Fuzzy flooding.

 

[BBond]

I can't make up my mind on this subject until our resident liberal meteorologist weighs in on it. He claims there is no increase and is actually a decrease in hurricane activity, if I understand him correctly, and the entire global warming thing is just another "liberal" invention to make nice companies spend money to decrease greenhouse gases.

 

[Strk]

Global warming is a serious issue, but not enough is known about it and it requires more research - Dubya's response every year for over 5 years....

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Strk
Global warming is a serious issue, but not enough is known about it and it requires more research - Dubya's response every year for over 5 years....

We saw Dumbya's real lack of response to global warming in New Orleans.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Strk
Global warming is a serious issue, but not enough is known about it and it requires more research - Dubya's response every year for over 5 years....

I don't believe that for a second. Republicans are into personal responsibility. Do you think for one minute a Republican businessman who was harming the earth would stand for that for one second. He would be all over himself like stink on sh!t.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You parsed that article a bit and left this part out:

Some researchers, however, question the connection with more severe hurricanes and cyclones. Gerry Bell, the lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the rise in strong hurricanes reflects a natural weather pattern spanning several decades. Hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean were more powerful in the 1950s and '60s, weakened in the 1970s, '80s and early '90s, and have strengthened again since 1995.

"It's not linked to global warming or anything like that," Bell said. "This is normal climate variability. It's just that this trend lasts for decades."

If global warming was a factor, then why was there a lull in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s? You didn't hear anyone back then claim Global Warming was responsible for a decrease in hurricane intensity. If there was a direct correlation, then why weren't hurricanes more intense then, when we had already identified Global Warming and knew it was already occurring?

Doesn't make sense. But we do know there is this factor called Decadal Oscillation occurring in both the Atlantic and Pacific, that functions on an approximately 30 year cycle, and that is far more likely the cause for the increase in hurricane intensity.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I had hear a scientist who just wrote a book on the subject stating that global warming hasn't caused the number of hurricanes to increase. But it has effected the strength of the hurricanes that do occur.

 

[NeoV]

GenX, so you have nothing to say on the subject? Here is a great example of my problem with extremists on the left or the right.

For some reason, the right chooses to follow the line that 'global warming is a myth'...TLC even comes in and tries to say that Hurricane activity is down, then tries to narrow it down to 'it's only down in the Atlantic', and then when that is proven to be seriously wrong as well, he tries to get technical and worm his way out of it...regardless..

Genx, here is a link to an article that pretty clearly shows that hurricanes are more frequent and more powerful.....and your response is 'gee, anyone can link' -

Is it that hard for you to think on your own? It's not a blame issue - I'm not trying to say that the right is responsible for Katrina, but is it that hard to acknowledge that there certainly seems to be a trend taking place?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NeoV
GenX, so you have nothing to say on the subject? Here is a great example of my problem with extremists on the left or the right.

For some reason, the right chooses to follow the line that 'global warming is a myth'...TLC even comes in and tries to say that Hurricane activity is down, then tries to narrow it down to 'it's only down in the Atlantic', and then when that is proven to be seriously wrong as well, he tries to get technical and worm his way out of it...regardless..

Genx, here is a link to an article that pretty clearly shows that hurricanes are more frequent and more powerful.....and your response is 'gee, anyone can link' -

Is it that hard for you to think on your own? It's not a blame issue - I'm not trying to say that the right is responsible for Katrina, but is it that hard to acknowledge that there certainly seems to be a trend taking place?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the number of intense huricanes dropped in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. If there was any direct correlation, they should have risen along with sea surface temps and as global warming increased, yet that wasn't the case. But we do have a historical record that indicates a natural cyclical factor, and the current storm intensities don't vary from that cyclical factor. Yes, there's a trend. Is that trend due to glaobal warming? If so, how does it explain the trend of increased intensities in the late 1800s/early 1900s and the 40, 50s, and early 60s? How does it explain the historical decreases?

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin...cation_files/resourse-1766-2005.36.pdf

 

[farmercal]

I remember a summer in 1975 that was hotter than I had ever seen it get....wait a minute that was 30 years ago, were we in global warming then too? I have a theory about why it seems hotter now than it did 10 years ago. Paved roads are the cause of all the warming. In the country where there are dirt roads it is about 10 degrees cooler than it is in the city. Perhaps we should just eliminte the pavement worldwide and we could cool things down to where they should be. Who is with me?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the number of intense huricanes dropped in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.

Pacific cool water shift called El Nino.

It caused a state of permenant westerlie wind shear stunting Hurricane development in western Atlantic/Gulf basin.

On the fip side it cause a massive drought condition to the east.

I guess you love extreme weather conditions.

Are you going to volunteer to live in one of the zones affected by the extreme shifts anytime soon to prove it???

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: farmercal
I remember a summer in 1975 that was hotter than I had ever seen it get....wait a minute that was 30 years ago, were we in global warming then too? I have a theory about why it seems hotter now than it did 10 years ago. Paved roads are the cause of all the warming. In the country where there are dirt roads it is about 10 degrees cooler than it is in the city. Perhaps we should just eliminte the pavement worldwide and we could cool things down to where they should be. Who is with me?

What you're describing is called the "heat island" effect, and some have argued that it's the real influence for the perceived rise in temps and is skewing the measurements. The measured temperature variance between associated urban and rural areas can be as much as 10 degrees.

http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/

 

[Train]

You want to try and use 30 years of data for a 10 Billion year old planet? Thats like comparing one coin toss to the next and talking about "drastic change!!" Its sad that people buy into it.

I posted these links in another thread:

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth2.cfm

THE ENVIROTRUTH: Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Carleton University and others show that in the past thousand years, there were periods much warmer and colder than today, long before we began burning significant quantities of fossil fuels. (An important March 2003 Harvard University announcement confirms this). The following graph puts this in perspective (NOTE: The Sargaso Sea is a two million square mile ellipse in the North Atlantic that has been studied for centuries - its temperature variations generally indicate global trends and agree with the even longer (6,000 year) Chinese peat bog records.):

From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period, the Earth was warmer than it is today. In the 20th Century the global average surface temperature rose about 0.7oC, after a five hundred year cool period called the Little Ice Age. Only the 20th Century warming trend may have a human component attributable to fossil fuel use, which increased sharply after 1940. A closer look at the 20th century temperature record shows three distinct trends: First, a warming trend of about 0.5oC began in the late 19th century and peaked around 1940. Next, temperature decreased from 1940 until the late 1970's - fears of a coming glacial period dominated during the '70s when Iceland's fisheries were destroyed by advancing sea ice, winters in North America were unusually cold and it was first realized that global temperatures had fallen steadily between 1940 and 1975. Then a third warming trend occurred from 1976 to 1986, after which the increase becomes very small. The largest portion of the warming for the second half of the 20th century was limited mainly to winter in the coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America.

So where do environmental groups get the idea that our planet has warmed dramatically in recent decades? The answer is simple - they are using the wrong data. Instead of citing modern, accurate, space-based measurements, they quote error-prone, ground-based temperature readings that give little indication of true global trends

...

In the final analysis, the Earth is warming ... and it is getting colder ? and it is staying the same. It all depends on what time frame you are speaking about and where (and how) you look.

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth3a.cfm

The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.

Considerable evidence now supports the carbon cycle modelers' assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels respond to temperature changes, not the reverse:

1) Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.

2) At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago, CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.

3) Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise.

A good example of the sort of misinformation that is being publicized regarding this topic is seen in the following quote from Dr. (Zoology) David Suzuki in the June 21, 2002 version of his "Science Matters" column that appeared in newspapers across Canada: "Increased concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, has pushed up global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced."

Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, responds, "The Suzuki comment displays an ignorance of climate science. Even the Greenpeace report on global warming concedes that water vapour is the most abundant and most important greenhouse gas. Water vapour is ignored because the models can't include clouds. Imagine recommending devastating economic and therefore social policy based on a climate model that can't even include clouds!" In fact, CO2 is less than 3 percent of greenhouse gases (GHG). Water vapor constitutes 97 percent. Other GHG are methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and trace gases.

theres lots more but I think that should be enough for now.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the number of intense huricanes dropped in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.

Pacific cool water shift called El Nino.

It caused a state of permenant westerlie wind shear stunting Hurricane development in western Atlantic/Gulf basin.

On the fip side it cause a massive drought condition to the east.

I guess you love extreme weather conditions.

Are you going to volunteer to live in one of the zones affected by the extreme shifts anytime soon to prove it???

And the opposite is called el Nina. The variance is also cyclical but on a much shorter timsescale than Decadal Oscillations. It can have an effect on the formation of tropical systems but has not been shown to have any relationship to intensities.

Besides that, both el Nino and el Nina have been shown to have global impacts (such as droughts in the Sahara and Midwest/Western US), so in a way we all live in areas that are affected by those natural shifts.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I had hear a scientist who just wrote a book on the subject stating that global warming hasn't caused the number of hurricanes to increase. But it has effected the strength of the hurricanes that do occur.

This is exactly right. Global warming does not increase incidences of hurricanes. Global warming makes hurricanes stronger.


This is a very important point. The strength of a hurricane is directly related to ocean temperature, at the heat in the water is what drives the energy of the hurricane. It is plausable to say the # of cat 4&5's have increased, in that they would have been ~cat 2&3's will cooler ocean temps, the the total number of hurricanes is not effected.

Ocean temps have increased 0.5C (in the last 50 yrs I believe.) This does not sound like a big change but it represents a HUGE amount of energy.

Q=cMdT is the equation of energy (Q) required to raise the temp of a mass.
c=1 calorie/g*C, dTemp=O.5 C, Mass=13.673e^23 grams of water in ocean

Do the math and you get 6.84e23 calories. Enormous amount of energy. To give an idea, a gallon of gas has 31000 cal/gallon. This energy then equals the energy of 2.2e19 gallons of gas.

links, links, links.


This is why the potential for global warming should be taken seriously. Small hurricanes which would be managable in a cooler world become very destructive in a warm world. These will have much greater costs on the economy (gee $200B for Katrina alone?) so they must be figured in when worrying about economical impacts for greenhouse gas emission reductions. You cannot just figure out one part of the equation to figure out its "economical viability."

 

[Witling]

GenX87. "Anybody can link anything if they put their mind to it." How true, my personal favorite is that the number of Ph.D.s in a state is inversley proportional to the number of mules. Correlation does not imply causality. However, we do know that hurricanes extract their energy from the sea over which they are formed. We do know that a warmer temperature means more energy to extract. This might be more than mules.

ThinsLikeChicken

"If global warming was a factor, then why was there a lull in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s You didn't hear anyone back then claim Global Warming was responsible for a decrease in hurricane intensity. If there was a direct correlation, then why weren't hurricanes more intense then, when we had already identified Global Warming and knew it was already occurring?"

First, of course people didn't claim that global warming decreased hurrican intensity, that doesn't correlate with the model. Why would the people who think that this is happening cite what they think is an anomoly as evidence of the effect of global warming. We're not exactly sure why hurrican intensity decreased but global warming isn't the only factor involved in hurricanes. Good Lord ChickenMan, even the Republicans are now admitting that we're involved in "climate change." They can't bring themselves to call it "global warming." The good news for you Mid-West guys is that tornados will also increase in intensity and frequency.

With global warming -- uh, I mean, climate change -- more energy is being dumped into the atmosphere and ocean. The system's methods of reaching equilibrium must necessarily involve the dissipation of more energy. As far as I know, we know of no method by which this increased energy might be stored.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Global warming: Boogyman of the 20th century. Is something going wrong? Blame it on global warming.

The increase in both the number and severity of hurricanes is a cyclical thing. I can't tell you how many times I've seen meterologists repeat this on CNN, FOX, MSNBC and any other news source I clicked on to during this hurricane season. You can actually watch them roll their eyes everytime the talking head asks them about GW.

Linkage

The hurricane activity of the next 20 years should resemble the period that began in the late 1920s and lasted through the 1940s. The increase is due to higher salinity content in the Atlantic Ocean, which alters its currents and increases average ocean temperatures, fueling more storms. Gray emphasizes that this is a cyclical trend and has nothing to do with global warming (CNN, April 22, 2000).

Here's the logic behind the statement. The more saline the water the warmer it gets. The warmer the ocean becomes, the greater the number of storms and severity of the hurricane season. When the earth warms and polar ice starts to melt, the salinity of the ocean is reduced thereby lowering the temperature of the ocean and reducing the number and severity of hurricanes.

So in effect global warming has the opposite effect you would expect on hurricanes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I had hear a scientist who just wrote a book on the subject stating that global warming hasn't caused the number of hurricanes to increase. But it has effected the strength of the hurricanes that do occur.

This is exactly right. Global warming does not increase incidences of hurricanes. Global warming makes hurricanes stronger.


This is a very important point. The strength of a hurricane is directly related to ocean temperature, at the heat in the water is what drives the energy of the hurricane. It is plausable to say the # of cat 4&5's have increased, in that they would have been ~cat 2&3's will cooler ocean temps, the the total number of hurricanes is not effected.

Ocean temps have increased 0.5C (in the last 50 yrs I believe.) This does not sound like a big change but it represents a HUGE amount of energy.

Q=cMdT is the equation of energy (Q) required to raise the temp of a mass.
c=1 calorie/g*C, dTemp=O.5 C, Mass=13.673e^23 grams of water in ocean

Do the math and you get 6.84e23 calories. Enormous amount of energy. To give an idea, a gallon of gas has 31000 cal/gallon. This energy then equals the energy of 2.2e19 gallons of gas.

links, links, links.


This is why the potential for global warming should be taken seriously. Small hurricanes which would be managable in a cooler world become very destructive in a warm world. These will have much greater costs on the economy (gee $200B for Katrina alone?) so they must be figured in when worrying about economical impacts for greenhouse gas emission reductions. You cannot just figure out one part of the equation to figure out its "economical viability."

So IF global warming is human-caused, then that cause is because of our use of fossil fuels for energy, and yet here you just outlined a whole new massive source of energy.
Solution: capture the increased energy in the ocean. Oddly enough, intelligent scientists are already working on this solution, while the politically-motivated chicken littles scream and cry about the end of the world.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I had hear a scientist who just wrote a book on the subject stating that global warming hasn't caused the number of hurricanes to increase. But it has effected the strength of the hurricanes that do occur.

This is exactly right. Global warming does not increase incidences of hurricanes. Global warming makes hurricanes stronger.


This is a very important point. The strength of a hurricane is directly related to ocean temperature, at the heat in the water is what drives the energy of the hurricane. It is plausable to say the # of cat 4&5's have increased, in that they would have been ~cat 2&3's will cooler ocean temps, the the total number of hurricanes is not effected.

Ocean temps have increased 0.5C (in the last 50 yrs I believe.) This does not sound like a big change but it represents a HUGE amount of energy.

Q=cMdT is the equation of energy (Q) required to raise the temp of a mass.
c=1 calorie/g*C, dTemp=O.5 C, Mass=13.673e^23 grams of water in ocean

Do the math and you get 6.84e23 calories. Enormous amount of energy. To give an idea, a gallon of gas has 31000 cal/gallon. This energy then equals the energy of 2.2e19 gallons of gas.

links, links, links.


This is why the potential for global warming should be taken seriously. Small hurricanes which would be managable in a cooler world become very destructive in a warm world. These will have much greater costs on the economy (gee $200B for Katrina alone?) so they must be figured in when worrying about economical impacts for greenhouse gas emission reductions. You cannot just figure out one part of the equation to figure out its "economical viability."

So IF global warming is human-caused, then that cause is because of our use of fossil fuels for energy, and yet here you just outlined a whole new massive source of energy.
Solution: capture the increased energy in the ocean. Oddly enough, intelligent scientists are already working on this solution, while the politically-motivated chicken littles scream and cry about the end of the world.

That makes sense considering the Katrina was orginally a level 5 hurricane...

Don't they have some kind of tide generators? I wonder what kind of effects that would have on the costal enviroment...